A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

I often hear evolutionists claim they "know how macroevolution occurs". If their claim is valid, then they should have no trouble explaining how, for example, the evolutionary ancestors of whales - ie, a rodent-like creature - could (hypothetically) be bred by humans to produce a whale (given unlimited time).

Thousands of years of animal breeding have demonstrated that there are real limits to how radically animals can be changed from their "original" form. For instance, wolves were bred to produce many different breeds of dogs, but harmful mutations limit how far this process can be taken. How can these genetic limitations be overcome to breed a whale from a sort-of-rodent?

"In his recent book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence of Evolution, Richard Dawkins observes airily that human beings are "distant cousins of bananas and turnips." Yet minutely observant plant breeders, "daily and hourly scrutinizing" their productions (to quote Darwin on natural selection), are unable to turn purple roses into blue ones." (Tom Bethell, Natural Limits to Variation, or Reversal to the Mean: Is Evolution Just Extrapolation by Another Name, evolutionnews.org)

"The available data of biology indicates that in contrast to evolutionary theories, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that biological change has limits." (Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits of Biological Change, 1984, p.149)

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Thread copied here from the A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Breeding is not evolution by natural selection.

Selection is only half of evolution. The other half is mutation.

If their claim is valid, then they should have no trouble explaining how, for example, the evolutionary ancestors of whales - ie, a rodent-like creature - could (hypothetically) be bred by humans to produce a whale (given unlimited time).

If we are going to simulate natural selection with breeding, then we should also simulate mutation with genetic engineering.

Enjoy

Thousands of years of animal breeding have demonstrated that there are real limits to how radically animals can be changed from their "original" form. For instance, wolves were bred to produce many different breeds of dogs, but harmful mutations limit how far this process can be taken.

Please demonstrate to us that human breeding of dogs introduced targeted mutations into their genomes.

Dredge writes: I often hear evolutionists claim they "know how macroevolution occurs". If their claim is valid, then they should have no trouble explaining how, for example, the evolutionary ancestors of whales - ie, a rodent-like creature - could (hypothetically) be bred by humans to produce a whale (given unlimited time).

"I often hear people claim how they "know how to drive." If their claim is valid, then they should have no trouble explaining how, for example, combustion engines work flawlessly with the electronics in a modern vehicle."

Your test doesn't align with the claim.
Although it's possible for someone to know how to drive as well as know how engines and electronics work - such a connection isn't required in any way.
That is - even if someone could explain your 'rodent-to-whale breeding' - it wouldn't necessarily mean that they understand how macroevolution occurs.
Such a misalignment only shows your own lack of knowledge about both the claim and the test.

If you want to learn how macroevolution occurs - you should start by asking how macroevolution occurs.
The answer begins relatively simply: Natural selection + mutations + time.

Please note there's no mention of breeding or producing anything specific.

The explanation of your test, however, also begins relatively simply:
1. Start with a very large population of rodents - equivalent to that when such rodents roamed the earth.
2. Provide an environment equivalent to that when such rodents roamed the earth.
3. Provide selection pressures equivalent to that when such rodents roamed the earth.
4. Wait for the populations to reproduce and evolve due to selection pressures and mutations.
5. If the progressive evolution of the rodent into a whale isn't matching what occurred the 1 time it previously happened at any point in the "unlimited time" available for the breeding - kill off all creatures and begin again at step 1.
-due to the random nature of mutations, this is expected to occur many, many times before it matches the 1 time it previously happened again.
6. Viola - a large population of whales.

Thousands of years of animal breeding have demonstrated...

It took me a long time to realize how long time is.

Just for perspective;

1000 seconds = 0.011 days
1,000,000,000 seconds = 11,574 days or 31.7 yrs

What can happen in 31 yrs that can't happen in half an hour?

Dredge writes: I often hear evolutionists claim they "know how macroevolution occurs". If their claim is valid, then they should have no trouble explaining how, for example, the evolutionary ancestors of whales - ie, a rodent-like creature - could (hypothetically) be bred by humans to produce a whale (given unlimited time).

Breeding is not a surrogate for evolution.

This is as stupid as you using electricity so you should easily be able to design a nuclear power plant.

Macroevolution is the exact same process as evolution.

Macroevolution is the exact same process as evolution.

Macroevolution is the exact same process as evolution.

Macroevolution is the exact same process as evolution.

Macroevolution is the exact same process as evolution.

Macroevolution is the exact same process as evolution.

Macroevolution is the exact same process as evolution.

This idea that mutations could bring about changes organized enough to produce a new species from an old is just a crock, pure fantasy. Has anyone ever even tracked the random occurrence of mutations over a long enough period of time to lend any credence to this common belief? Wouldn't mutations have to build on one another to bring about the necessary changes to get a coherent new phenotype, but everything I've ever heard about mutations is that they are entirely random. That is, they are a DISorganizing force, the opposite of what is needed.

So all you geneticists here, prove that even millions of years of mutations could bring about a new species from an old species.

I asked a while back if anyone could track the mutations needed to change the genome of a known creature in a direction that could produce a new species, and got nothing. And there's still the question of tracking the evolutionary path to get from a reptilian ear to a mammalian ear. More nothing.

Clearly the belief in the ability of mutations to bring about such changes is a belief with no substance whatever. It just sort of sounds plausible but in fact it is impossible.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The ToE requires very large amounts of time - often millions of years. We can't therefore show you step by step how evolution has happened. What we can do is show you the evidence of it at work in the fossil record and show you how genetic mutation works.

We can also show you specific modern examples of micro-evolution and show the mutations that occurred to make the change and the environmental pressures that caused it.

The recent work on the peppered moth is the best example of that that I know of. But we've discussed others here with bacteria and mice.

https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=19177

The difficulty though Faith, is that unless Jesus Christ himself tells you, you won't accept it. And if he did, you'd accuse him of being the devil.

This idea that mutations could bring about changes organized enough to produce a new species from an old is just a crock, pure fantasy.

Only a willfully stupid creationist would have a crazy idea like that. Or else somebody whose only knowledge of evolution comes from X-Men movies. Where did you get your crazy ideas from?

Yet again (not that you will ever allow yourself to learn), mutations increase genetic variation without any ability to organize the outcomes of those mutations. Natural selection provides that organizing by removing unbeneficial and deleterious traits and favoring beneficial traits. Evolution needs both.

Yet again the simple facts that willfully stupid creationists just cannot allow themselves to understand:

• Evolution does not work by mutation (or other methods of increasing genetic variation) alone.
  
• Evolution does not work by natural selection alone.
  
• It is genetic variation and natural selection both working together that drives and enables evolution.
  

Learn something about evolution!

Ignorance is a common problem which is curable. Stupidity is a deliberate decision which can only be cured by deliberately deciding to stop being stupid.

Of course I didn't really expect an explanation of how random mutations could possibly form an organized genetic anything even over millions of years, so that was predictable, as of course was the snarkl. You asked where I get my ideas, well this one has been forming in my head over the last few months without any other source.

Mutations occur willynilly here and there, and the ones that occur in the reproductive cells are particularly rare.

Most mutations are not going to do anything more than add to the usual variations built into the genome of the species. You need mutations that do something entirely different, change the genome in some brand new direction. How often is that going to happen? And then it has to get selected. This whole scenario is wackily impossible.

Why can't you at least THINK about how any such random event could ever in a million years get selected toward some organized new phenotype? A mutation here, a mutation there, these have to have some kind of coherent pattern and that pattern has to be selected piecemeal over huge amounts of time. The probabilities involved are beyond the organizing powers of billions of years, let alone millions.

But without even the slightest speculation along these llnes all you have is a wild assumption. The scenario is simply impossible.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: Why can't you at least THINK about how any such random event could ever in a million years get selected toward some organized new phenotype?

You're looking at it wrong. The DNA is already organized. Mutation is just a re- organization.

You're asking the equivalent of, "How can the letters in a sentence be re-arranged to form a different sentence?" Very easily. Very naturally.

You get a mutation in fur color, a mutation next in toenail shape, then one in eye shape, then another in fur color, and most of these don't actually change the phenotype at all, most of them get selected out, and most aren't in the germ cells anyway. You get hundreds ofr these random changes that go nowhere but you expect somehow for enough of them to come together over millions of years to create a new functioning coherent whole? Wacko.

You believe in this so spell it out for us.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: ... most of them get selected out....

And some of them don't. Unless you can guarantee that EVERY mutation will be selected out - and of course you can't - you can't prevent evolution.

The usual article of faith that can't be proved and is in fact impossible. All that's ever going to be selected is a variation on the given genome, you are never going to get changes to the genome, let alone selected.